Byron York runs with discredited Fox smear, falsely asserts that student Jennings counseled was 15
Reviving a smear that even Fox News has repudiated, Fox News contributor and Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York reported as fact that a student counseled by Education Department official Kevin Jennings in 1988 regarding the student's "encounter with an older man" was 15 at the time, adding that "some defenders now say the boy was 16." In fact, Media Matters for America has definitively proven that the student was 16 at the time -- the legal age of consent in Massachusetts -- producing a statement from the student and his driver's license, evidence that CNN subsequently reported on and confirmed.
York reported as fact that student was 15, says "some defenders" say he was 16
From York's October 6 article:
As a young teacher, nearly two decades ago, Jennings was approached by a 15-year old boy (some defenders now say the boy was 16) who said he had had an encounter with an older man. Instead of pursuing the matter with the authorities, Jennings, by his own account, offered some simple advice: "I hope you used a condom."
Fox-promoted claim that student was 15 has been debunked
Student was 16 at the time of the incident. The former student at the center of the Jennings controversy, whom Jennings has referred to as "Brewster," provided Media Matters with a statement that he was "a sixteen year-old" and "was of legal consent at the time." Additionally, Media Matters obtained a copy of the student's driver's license, which shows that he was 16 at the time -- the legal age of consent in Massachusetts.
CNN's Yellin cited student's license, statement in debunking right-wing smears. After reporting that CNN spoke to Brewster and reading from the same statement Brewster provided to Media Matters, CNN's Jessica Yellin reported that "the critics have also contended that Brewster was 15 at the time of this incident; the Fox News website continues to report that." Yellin then aired an image of the student's driver's license, stating that it "verifies he was actually 16 at the time, not 15, which means that if there had been sex, he was actually the legal age of consent in Massachusetts." [CNN's The Situation Room, 10/2/09]
Fox News tirelessly advanced false accusation that Jennings covered up "statutory rape." Fox News and its websites Fox Nation and FoxNews.com repeatedly advanced the smear that Jennings, in the words of Fox News host Bill Hemmer, knew of a "statutory rape" and "never reported it," based on the falsehood that the student was 15.
FoxNews.com later issues "Editor's Note" confirming student was 16 at the time. Fox News has appended the following editor's note to two FoxNews.com stories that stated or suggested that Brewster was 15 at the time: "Since this story was originally published, the former student referred to as 'Brewster' has stepped forward to reveal that he was 16 years old, not 15, at the time of the incident described in this report."
York falsely claims that "defenders" only now "say the boy was 16"
Jennings' attorney in 2004: Conversation was "with a sixteen-year-old student"; "no factual basis" that Jennings was "aware of any sexual victimization of any student." In an August 3, 2004, letter, Constance M. Boland of the law firm Nixon Peabody -- which represented the organization that Jennings ran -- wrote that the "conversation" Jennings had was with "a sixteen-year-old student" and that there "is no factual basis whatsoever for" the "claim that Mr. Jennings engaged in unethical practices, or that he was aware of any sexual victimization of any student, or that he declined to report any sexual victimization at any time." [Boland letter, 8/3/04]
WE LIE...AND WE'RE DAMN PROUD OF IT!
What makes it even worse is now you have Fox News leading this Homopheobic Attack.
It must be a Horrible Feeling to walk through life as a Target for Hate?
"Please Don't Fox News Me" Does this phrase need anymore Debate?
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
You mentioning the alternative info would likely have been sufficient to keep you out of hot water last week. This week, you just put your foot in your mouth by writing it! All you do is mislead your readers. There is no way to defend "some defenders now say he's 16" given the evidence that multiple news media and MMFA have seen.
What I want to know is where is RightON, who tirelessly claimed yesterday that MMFA had an issue with the words that someone used to describe Jennings advice. Funny how they don't even mention it in this column. As I said yesterday, the only reason it got mentioned in the previous column was because someone was saying that the advice Jennings gave was evidence that he encouraged statutory rape. It was advice to educate the kid that he should know to use condoms, and was not encouragement of the behavior. Just like sex ed is not encouragement to kids for them to have sex.
My god Sue-Z-Q, can't you read? I will bold it for you if you are so dense you might miss it.
"A Washington Times editorial accused "safe school czar" Kevin Jennings of "encourag[ing]" a relationship that amounted to "statutory rape," by suggesting that his only response to an underage student's revelation that he had sex with what the Times described as an "older man" was to "make sure 'to use a condom.' " In fact, Jennings stated that he hoped the student "knew to use a condom"
But you can't, because they didn't. Because the exact words weren't important. Jennings advice to the student, that he hoped that the kid knew to use a condom, was not just a hope that he had known to use a condom, but was also advice to the kid that if and when he had sex, he should use a condom.
But when they objected to the truncating of Jennings comment, it was because the perpetrators were trying to use the comment as evidence that he was encouraging sexual contact. He wasn't.
Your "desperation here" isn't hurting your credibility, since long before I ever showed up here, you had lost yours apparently. I am not showing desperation. I am showing disgust and disappointment and intensity and fortitude in continuing to fight distortions around this topic. You, on the other hand, aren't.
You have truncated the statement by MMFA in the same dishonest way a couple of times. You keep leaving off the last sentence that's really important.
"In fact, Jennings stated that he hoped the student "knew to use a condom" to protect against STDs; moreover, the FoxNews.com article from which The Washington Times based this claim truncated Jennings' remarks to exclude his statement that he thought to say this because his "best friend had just died of AIDS the week before."
Do you know what "moreover" means? It means besides, but it implies that the following is even more important, more relevant, than the first clause.
Jennings advice was not solely looking into the future, which is a minor distortion of what he said that MMFA pointed out in the first part of the sentence. The bigger problem was mentioned in the second part of the sentence, where they failed to account for the real reason he mentioned condoms. My sentence about condom use in a previous thread was talking about the student hopefully knowing that he should have known to use a condom if he had sex with the guy he met on the return trip and that he should know to use one on future interactions too. Jennings called what he did "advice". Advice. The only way that saying something about a past event is "advice" is if you want that person to learn for any future repeats of that event! Otherwise, it's criticism or just a comment. Do you know what "advice" means? It's about the future.
You can spin or interpret it anyway you see fit, your only mission is to argue with me here and by doing so you are not only misrepresenting Jennings and making him look worse than he is, but you are too damn pigheaded and moronic to see that.
It's not me who won't see reality - that would be your sin here.
"By suggesting" is relevant to MMFA's proof that Jennings statement isn't evidence that he encouraged the sexual interaction!
I have consistently said that Jennings statement was not only a hope that the student used protection in the past, but that he would continue to do so in the future. That's the way Jennings himself described it - as advice to the kid. Saying I hope you did something is not advice. It's criticism, or an inquiry. Advice is forward looking.
What the Washington Times did that was offensive was to distort the comment make it mean ONLY for the future. I never did that. Jennings didn't mean it that way, and they used that distortion to try to make their point. You are distorting what I said to try to make your point, and it will never work, since I will not allow you to distort what I said.
I said "Jennings thought that there easily could have been contact betweent the two of them and so he cautioned the kid to make sure when he did have sex that he knew to use a condom."
That comment means that he cautioned that kid that whenever he had sex, be it the night before or any time in the future, that he should use protection. My comment did NOT simply refer to the future. I have explained this to you countless times, but you don't seem to be able to understand it. This ongoing confusion on your part makes you look foolish. If, as I said, Jennings thought that they had had sex the night before, then that would be a time that they should have used a condom. Read my comment in full again. That means both looking at the past and thinking towards the future. Both!
1) The Wash Times is saying that Jennings encouraged the relationship by suggesting that Jennings told "Brewster" he hopes he uses a condom.
2) You are saying that Jennings told "Brewster" to use a condom because he had just had a friend die of AIDS and was advising him for future sexual encounters.
3) MMfA, as well as myself, is saying that Jennings told "Brewster" that he hoped he had used a condom because he had just had a friend die of AIDS. Jennings did NOT advise him to use a condom for future sexual contacts, that is an outright distorting lie on what he said. Period.
The Wash Times had to say that Jennings told him to use a condom because that fits into their narrative of him encouraging the relationship, can't you see that? And that is precisely what MMfA takes issue with, and is what jumpstarted this entire topic days ago.
So, you and The Wash Times are making the same misrepresentation of Jennings words. Period. Jennings was not speaking of the future in any way when talking to "Brewster". He was simply making an observation on how he hoped "Brewster" used a condom due to his recent loss. That's it.
Maybe somebody else can come here and explain it to you that will do a better job than I have done. Frankly, it's fun watching you flailing around this topic, I just can't wait to see you finally admit your error, but I won't hold my breath.
And no, it was the truncating of the comment that was the issue - because it was leaving off the reason why the teacher told the kid what he did that was at issue. The Washington Times said that it encouraged the sex because they left of the truncated statement - magically, that's the same truncation that you have been guilty of repeatedly!
And based upon the comments of people who have been around here a lot longer than I am, it would be you who cannot admit their errors. I have not exhibited that behavior, but from the little I've seen, you are on that same path.
Jennings said it was advice. That means that not only was it directed at the suspected sexual activity that happened the night before, but it also was directed to future behavior.
"I hope you knew to turn off the pilot light before you set off the bug bomb right next to the furnace" is something I said to my sister a long time ago. I was saying that I hoped she exercised caution that time, as well as giving her advice for the future, whether or not she exercised caution before. For you to claim that Jennings wasn't doing both doesn't just strain credibility, it tosses it into the garbage disposal and turns it on!
But you can't, because they didn't. Because the exact words weren't important. Jennings advice to the student, that he hoped that the kid knew to use a condom, was not just a hope that he had known to use a condom, but was also advice to the kid that if and when he had sex, he should use a condom.
You are simply off the rails now.
York said that Jennings comment was "I hope you used a condom." It wasn't. It was that he hoped he knew to use a condom.
It would be you whose argument blew up in your face when MMFA didn't object to ongoing inaccurate quotes. They only objected to inaccurate quotes when that inaccurate quote was being used to assert that Jennings encouraged statutory rape.
And then your argument went off the tracks when you tried to assert that my comment ""Jennings thought that there easily could have been contact betweent the two of them and so he cautioned the kid to make sure when he did have sex that he knew to use a condom" could only refer to future actions. It's not my fault you missed it there.
Fail.
How come you always appear on the "deviant" sex threads. Can't help but comment on the imaginary underage ACORN sex rings or this imaginary statutory rape, can you?
And yes, I do dislike most of everything you post because it's either creepy, parsing, or drivel. But you are, if nothing else, entertaining and consistent. So I'll give you that.
They did not make any such point. They made the point that his comment was not encouragement of a relationship that amounted to statutory rape! They made the point that his comment was advisory in terms of hoping to protect the student from an STD, since Jennings had had a friend recently die from AIDS.
They did correct the misquote, but that was not their point. Their point was that when FoxNews truncated the quote to leave off this part, that his "best friend had just died of AIDS the week before," and that's why he recommended condom usage.
The headline? After FoxNews.com truncated Jennings' quote, Wash. Times, Fox Nation accuse "safe school czar" of "encouraging" statutory rape.
But above, what did RightON do? He gave you only a partial sentence in bold - because the second part of that sentence debunks his assertion. The full sentence is "In fact, Jennings stated that he hoped the student "knew to use a condom" to protect against STDs; moreover, the FoxNews.com article from which The Washington Times based this claim truncated Jennings' remarks to exclude his statement that he thought to say this because his "best friend had just died of AIDS the week before."
They mischaracterized what he said and then they used it to say that he encouraged statutory rape.
"by suggesting" is not what MMFA took issue with. They took issue with asserting that his comment, one that they mischaracterized, was simply and only an encouragement of sexual activity. It wasn't. It was a hope that the student had protected himself, since Jennings assumed that the kid had had sex, and it was also advice on what to do in the future.